And the way you phrased it now it sounds like a one-time performed action. I deliberately didn't do that.
I see what you mean. The standard format for static effects is 'object being effected' followed by 'effect'. I'm almost certain this would the be correct way of wording it.
Spells and abilities you control have their text changed by replacing all instances of the "X" with "3".
The more I look into this the more complicated it seems. It appears that the best solution is to adjust the rules so that X and X are different. So you can replace one without effecting the other.
Cleaning up Doomfish's wording
Change the text of all spells and abilities you control by replacing all instances of the "X" with "3".
It requires a possibly significant change to the rules, but it probably should be done anyway.
The card would still need release notes explaining that your ignore the part of the spell that tries to set the value of X. Which might cause further issues.
My wording doesn't change the cost of Cabal Interrogator. It only affects spells and abilities, not permanents. So only when things are being placed on the stack they become affected.
From what I can find the game doesn't readily distinguish "abilities" on the stack and "abilities" on creatures. It uses similar wording to describe both, so whether your wording changes the abilities printed on permanents can be debated, the point that it can be debated is a problem.
As far as Rosheen Meanderer goes, X is different from "X". edit: I just discovered that this is not the case, as Emblazoned Golem and Drain Life for example refer to the X being paid for just as X. To me, this seems like an oversight and could easily recieve an errata for my card, as it's really just a bad way of doing things. There should be a difference between X and X. Magic so far just doesn't make that difference, because it doesn't matter yet.
Possible solutions for clearing up those confusions: Change it to "spells, activated and triggered abilities you control". That should cover all, right?
Add a reminder text reading (This doesn't affect the X symbol.)
Then again, that reminder text probably adds to the confusion, so that'd be more likely part of the release notes.
That seems like an awful lot of hoops to jump through when there exist wording the functions without the excess complications.
Actually I just realized that my wording doesn't affect triggered abilities like Mogis's Marauder.
You misunderstood me, your original ability forced blaze to be 3R, your next version was better. Thoughtcriminal brings up a lot of good points. You can set it up so that it will replace prior to going on the stack.
Using Overload as a starting point:
"As you cast a spell or activate an ability change its text by replacing all instances of "X" with "3.""
Could you elaborate on why you would use 'As' for the ability and how it has benefits over my wording of: The text of all spells and abilities you control is changed by replacing all instances of the word "X" with "3".? It's a good find anyhow, as it shows that " are needed.
Two reasons.
First and foremost, to prevent it changing costs in activated abilities. With your wording the X in the cost to activate something like Cabal Interrogator is replaced with a 3, which if I understood was something you were trying to avoid.
Second, so that your cards still actually have X on them so they can be referenced appropriately, Rosheen Meanderer. Though I'm not certain that this particular one actually still works.
Desire and Passion are both too powerful. Unless you have easy and multitudinous ways of exiling cards from graveyards. The powerlevel of these cards fluctuate greatly based on how many ways you have to discard them from your hand or exile them from graveyards. Either of these cards in a standard with at least two Tormenting Voice like cards and you have insane card advantage.
Worldslayer's trigger will destroy all other permanents even if you make it phase out, or remove it in any other way; all abilities exist independent of their source after they triggered, so messing with their source will usually do nothing. As per the definition of phasing, all permanents that are phased out when Worldslayer's trigger resolves will be ignored. So in this instance worldslayer's ability will be fairly asymmetrical.
Guys, I think I have your answer. I think Angrath is Tahngarth. Here's my evidence:
1) we are returning to tahngarth's home plane, Dominaria, in 2 sets.
2) Angrath is a Minotaur so is Tahngarth. and they look exactly the same check the art I've attached other than the extra horns on tahngarth, which I can't explain. However, they do have the same gray and red skin tones and are both built like huge musclebeasts.
3) Tahngarth is an anagram of Angrath except it is missing an h.
4) When Vuel went to Rath, and was corrupted by the phyrexians he became Volrath. Tahngarth was on Dominaria when the phyrexians overlayed Rath onto it and the phyrexians attempted to corrupt him but it was believed they failed. Which means it would make sense for him to change his name to Angrath.
5) When the war for Dominaria ended, the Phyrexians were believed to have been defeated, but Karn carried a little bit of the oil to Mirrodin where it hid on the plane and rebuilt itself and began the fight which ended in the plane becoming New Phyrexia. What happened to Tahngarth? He and Sisay were built a new ship called The Victory and left for adventures on other planes. This set has vehicles, Which is exactly what the Victory would be if it were a modern card.
6) Angrath can't planeswalk, and significantly the phyrexians can't either.
1) Yes, but that hardly counts as significant evidence.
2)No, they look almost nothing alike. Their horn shapes are completely different, they have different color hair and skin.
3)This is very forced, just go with what others are saying, they sound/look enough alike that it would make sense for one to be inspired by the other.
4)If he didn't change his name right away why would he change his name years later?
5)He may or may not be dead. One of the best pieces of evidence that we may one day seem him again, but he should be dead based solely on the passage of time.
6)I don't even know what this one is. Angrath is trapped on Ixalan because it is Ixalan, not because of anything with Angrath. And because Tahngarth wasn't a planeswalker before this is actually the strongest piece of evidence against them being the same person.
Overall you have a small amount of evidence saying we could see Tahngarth coupled with slightly more evidence that Angrath isn't Tahngarth and you've combined them to say the opposite of the second set of evidence.
What is supposed to happen if you 'fail to find' lands? Is the spell countered(have no effect), Does the opponent automatically get the card?
If you go with choose at random over shuffle then choose, you can skip the reveal and just exile face up.
Choose target opponent. Search that player's library for a nonland card and two land cards and exile them. If you exiled three cards this way the chosen opponent chooses one at random. If the nonland card is chosen that player may cast the chosen card without paying it's mana cost. Otherwise you may cast the nonland card without paying it's mana cost.
I left the cards in exile because it feels weird to exile them for no real reason then put them back.
Typing on phone so this may be horrible wrong.
You misunderstood me, your original ability forced blaze to be 3R, your next version was better. Thoughtcriminal brings up a lot of good points. You can set it up so that it will replace prior to going on the stack.
Using Overload as a starting point:
"As you cast a spell or activate an ability change its text by replacing all instances of "X" with "3.""
Yes, sacrificing a token counts as a permanent leaving the battlefield. And you have to sacrifice the treasure for mana long before Push would resolve.
Cleaning up Doomfish's wording It requires a possibly significant change to the rules, but it probably should be done anyway.
The card would still need release notes explaining that your ignore the part of the spell that tries to set the value of X. Which might cause further issues.
That seems like an awful lot of hoops to jump through when there exist wording the functions without the excess complications.
Actually I just realized that my wording doesn't affect triggered abilities like Mogis's Marauder.
Two reasons.
First and foremost, to prevent it changing costs in activated abilities. With your wording the X in the cost to activate something like Cabal Interrogator is replaced with a 3, which if I understood was something you were trying to avoid.
Second, so that your cards still actually have X on them so they can be referenced appropriately, Rosheen Meanderer. Though I'm not certain that this particular one actually still works.
2)No, they look almost nothing alike. Their horn shapes are completely different, they have different color hair and skin.
3)This is very forced, just go with what others are saying, they sound/look enough alike that it would make sense for one to be inspired by the other.
4)If he didn't change his name right away why would he change his name years later?
5)He may or may not be dead. One of the best pieces of evidence that we may one day seem him again, but he should be dead based solely on the passage of time.
6)I don't even know what this one is. Angrath is trapped on Ixalan because it is Ixalan, not because of anything with Angrath. And because Tahngarth wasn't a planeswalker before this is actually the strongest piece of evidence against them being the same person.
Overall you have a small amount of evidence saying we could see Tahngarth coupled with slightly more evidence that Angrath isn't Tahngarth and you've combined them to say the opposite of the second set of evidence.
If you go with choose at random over shuffle then choose, you can skip the reveal and just exile face up.
I left the cards in exile because it feels weird to exile them for no real reason then put them back.
Typing on phone so this may be horrible wrong.
Using Overload as a starting point:
"As you cast a spell or activate an ability change its text by replacing all instances of "X" with "3.""
Try:
"If a spell or ability you control would use X, it uses 3 instead."